Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

But you see the point is that I don't care to persuade anyone. I'm not passionate at all for this (in fact I did call it a silly debate to begin with. If you were a bit careful you'd have noticed that).

Both contain works of mine. Check, have a listen and see if they all feel the same... :-/

But it IS up to you in the end. I offered an idea and not much else (and something that Polyphonist was eager to discuss...).

I tried one of your websites and the page didn't load. Anyway, we're not discussing your music, we're discussing that of Rachmaninoff, Medtner, and Scriabin. You claim that the music of Rachmaninoff is inferior to that of Scriabin because Rachmaninoff was a conservative and refused to be swept up in the wave of atonality that permeated the first half of the twentieth century and which consumed Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Scriabin. Well, Bach lived during the beginning of the Classical reform movement. Yet he continued to write in the High Baroque way, using his distinctive mixture of the German, Italian, and French styles. Rachmaninoff is very similar in this respect - he remained with the harmonic language and sonority of Late Romanticism, while Scriabin went on to compose vast quantities of atonal music. So, using your criteria, Scarlatti should be superior to Bach.

When Nikolas starts telling us all about his compositions, I head for the hills ... having a low threshold of pain.

However, for those who mightn’t know it ... at the Moscow Conservatory, Rachmaninoff had Tchaikovsky as a teacher.

“At his final examination in keyboard harmony,he was given a unique mark; the maximum possible score was five, which, as an acknowledgement of exceptional ability, could be supplemented with a plus mark.

Rachmaninoff earned a five, with four plusesone each side, one below and one above.”Kind regards, btb

When Nikolas starts telling us all about his compositions, I head for the hills ... having a low threshold of pain.

However, for those who mightn’t know it ... at the Moscow Conservatory, Rachmaninoff had Tchaikovsky as a teacher.

“At his final examination in keyboard harmony,he was given a unique mark; the maximum possible score was five, which, as an acknowledgement of exceptional ability, could be supplemented with a plus mark.

Rachmaninoff earned a five, with four plusesone each side, one below and one above.”Kind regards, btb

But you see the point is that I don't care to persuade anyone. I'm not passionate at all for this (in fact I did call it a silly debate to begin with. If you were a bit careful you'd have noticed that).

I know... at least I read it this way. Still it was an opportunity for a punch below the belt! :P

After all I'm still laughing in my flame armor.

You seem to really want to turn this into a flame war.

If I'm giving this impression, I'm sorry. I'm just taking this thread quite lightly, that's all (thus all the comments and pic about armor and stuff. Completely and utterly silly).

Anthony: You don't seem to get it. It's a post on a (silly) internet debate. That's all. You want to take it apart, by all means. But YOU want examples. You disagree with the classification I made. That's fine by me, you know... I won't bite, I won't fight back, and I probably won't post much else...

I'm just taking this thread quite lightly, that's all (thus all the comments and pic about armor and stuff. Completely and utterly silly).

As well you should. And as well we all should when reading any thread on PW.

Originally Posted by beet31425

Tone is everything. Nikolas, good-natured, self-deprecating, liberal with the smiley-faces, is the very antithesis of an internet troll.

Nikolas is one of the true gentlemen on this forum. Even if I thought he wrote something spiteful or nasty, I'd first question my own interpretation of what he wrote before I'd ever question his intent. "Nasty" just doesn't seem to be in his DNA.

And if he's doing a bit of trolling at the moment, more power to him. The place needs a little livening up from time to time.

I'm just taking this thread quite lightly, that's all (thus all the comments and pic about armor and stuff. Completely and utterly silly).

As well you should. And as well we all should when reading any thread on PW.

Originally Posted by beet31425

Tone is everything. Nikolas, good-natured, self-deprecating, liberal with the smiley-faces, is the very antithesis of an internet troll.

Nikolas is one of the true gentlemen on this forum. Even if I thought he wrote something spiteful or nasty, I'd first question my own interpretation of what he wrote before I'd ever question his intent. "Nasty" just doesn't seem to be in his DNA.

And if he's doing a bit of trolling at the moment, more power to him. The place needs a little livening up from time to time.

If you'll allow me to divert the attention a bit, Rachmaninoff has greater credentials and had greater success, both as a pianist and composer, compared with Scriabin or Medtner.. by pretty much any measure. All three are missing something, though, compared with the masters Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and later Shostakovich. I suppose that I am predisposed to prefer the composers who respected and understood the contributions of the Western composers, well enough to ultimately improve on them. The "Russian Romantics" were a little too insular and self-absorbed for my taste, though the next guy may have exactly the opposite opinion and admire their individuality.

If you'll allow me to divert the attention a bit, Rachmaninoff has greater credentials and had greater success, both as a pianist and composer, compared with Scriabin or Medtner.. by pretty much any measure. All three are missing something, though, compared with the masters Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and later Shostakovich. I suppose that I am predisposed to prefer the composers who respected and understood the contributions of the Western composers, well enough to ultimately improve on them. The "Russian Romantics" were a little too insular and self-absorbed for my taste, though the next guy may have exactly the opposite opinion and admire their individuality.

So you're saying that Rachmaninoff was a Russian Romantic, and Tchaikovsky wasn't? Not sure how you're figuring that one out. And yes, Tchaikovsky is a master, even a genius, but Rachmaninoff (his student) surpassed him in almost every way.

[quote=Nikolas]I know... at least I read it this way. Still it was an opportunity for a punch below the belt! :P

After all I'm still laughing in my flame armor.

You seem to really want to turn this into a flame war.

If I'm giving this impression, I'm sorry. I'm just taking this thread quite lightly, that's all (thus all the comments and pic about armor and stuff. Completely and utterly silly).

Anthony: You don't seem to get it. It's a post on a (silly) internet debate. That's all. You want to take it apart, by all means. But YOU want examples. You disagree with the classification I made. That's fine by me, you know... I won't bite, I won't fight back, and I probably won't post much else...

That's par for the course just now. (The spoilers tend to get bored after a while and either become useful contributors or go away.) The problem, of course, is that forum members who have something thoughtful or worthwhile to contribute don't contribute for fear of being trashed by this year's young turk or just don't want to get involved in flame wars.

If you'll allow me to divert the attention a bit, Rachmaninoff has greater credentials and had greater success, both as a pianist and composer, compared with Scriabin or Medtner.. by pretty much any measure. All three are missing something, though, compared with the masters Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and later Shostakovich. I suppose that I am predisposed to prefer the composers who respected and understood the contributions of the Western composers, well enough to ultimately improve on them. The "Russian Romantics" were a little too insular and self-absorbed for my taste, though the next guy may have exactly the opposite opinion and admire their individuality.

The funny thing is: The Group of the Five (Cuj, Balakirev, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakow and Borodin) wanted to make "real" Russian music, and distance themselves from Tschaikowsky. Whether Rachmaninoff is more "Russian" than the Five is open for debate.

As for me, I prefer Shostakovich to Rachmaninoff by far. As for Scriabin... A few months ago I was at a concert with the Cello concerto by Scriabin, and a Symphony by Rachmaninoff (the 3rd or 4th, I don't remember; the one he wrote while being in the USA). And I liked the Rachmaninoff better, because it sounded more like Shostakovich, while the Scriabin sounded a bit too late-romantic for my taste.

This has nothing to do with which hand to use where while playing a prelude, but it's fun discussing music anyway. And since the spin-off thread about innovation and conservatism was locked, I might as well post it here.

But you see the point is that I don't care to persuade anyone. I'm not passionate at all for this (in fact I did call it a silly debate to begin with. If you were a bit careful you'd have noticed that).

Both contain works of mine. Check, have a listen and see if they all feel the same... :-/

But it IS up to you in the end. I offered an idea and not much else (and something that Polyphonist was eager to discuss...).

I tried one of your websites and the page didn't load. Anyway, we're not discussing your music, we're discussing that of Rachmaninoff, Medtner, and Scriabin. You claim that the music of Rachmaninoff is inferior to that of Scriabin because Rachmaninoff was a conservative and refused to be swept up in the wave of atonality that permeated the first half of the twentieth century and which consumed Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Scriabin. Well, Bach lived during the beginning of the Classical reform movement. Yet he continued to write in the High Baroque way, using his distinctive mixture of the German, Italian, and French styles. Rachmaninoff is very similar in this respect - he remained with the harmonic language and sonority of Late Romanticism, while Scriabin went on to compose vast quantities of atonal music. So, using your criteria, Scarlatti should be superior to Bach.

He didn't write a 4th; it must have been the 3rd, in A minor. Glorious music.

I just did an Internet search. Rachmaninoff wrote his third symphony in 1935-36; but made revisions to it in 1938. I guess I must have read in the program text that he made the revisions in the USA, or that the premiere was in the USA.Anyway, it was a symphony that he wrote while being homesick.

But he still is no Shostakovich. One concert I attended this year was with a piano concerto by Rachmaninoff (the second; the one that was used for "All by myself"), and Shostakovich's 10th symphony. I preferred the latter.

Symphonic Dances orchestral suite - 3 movements - is sometimes mistakenly referred to as his 4th symphony. It was completed in the USA late in the composer's career. Evidence suggests it was actually meant to be a ballet but never quite got there. An interesting work nonetheless. In tandem with his Rhapsody it seems to reveal an incipient progression into modernism.